Rubio: New border-security amendment coming next week

posted at 8:01 am on June 14, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, I interviewed Sen. Marco Rubio while guest-hosting The Hugh Hewitt show to get some answers on the failure of the Grassley amendment on the immigration bill, and to ask what the Gang of Eight would do to address concerns from border and immigration enforcement personnel about immigration reform. Rubio told our listeners that the Grassley amendment would have delayed the collection of fines for years — and more importantly, that a new border-security amendment would come next week to specify the substance and metrics required to proceed:

EM: Always a pleasure to talk with you. Now we are obviously watching what’s going on with the immigration bill, and the debate in the Senate with a great deal of interest and some concern, Senator Rubio, because Senator Grassley had proposed an amendment which seemed to toughen up the border security triggers at least, if not the visa program triggers. And that amendment seemed to have disappeared, or it was obviously voted down. I don’t mean to say it was disappeared.

MR: Right.

EM: It was voted down.

MR: Right.

EM: And that has a lot of people kind of concerned now about whether or not we’re going to have substantial triggers on border security that are verifiable and not bypassable.

MR: Well, first of all, we are, because it won’t pass without it, number one. And I just didn’t think the Grassley approach was the right approach, and although I know he’s trying to do the right thing, and I’ll explain to you why. Two things, three things, really, first is we didn’t want to wait to background check and identify the people that are here illegally. I want to do that as soon as possible. And the reason why I want to do that as soon as possible is because I don’t want the problem to get worse. I’m worried about if we wait another four years, or three years, and leave the de facto amnesty in place for two to three years, and that people know that at some point in the future, you might be doing something, it’s going to encourage people to come in. And the result is in three or four years, when we finally start the process, we may find out that instead of 11 million or 10 million, it’s 13 million or 14 million. So I want these people that are living in this country now illegally, I want to know who they are as soon as possible. I want them to undergo background checks, I want them to pay a fine, I want them to start paying taxes and working. And in exchange for all of that, they don’t get anything permanent. They don’t get a green card. They don’t get a path to citizenship. The only thing they get is a work permit, a temporary work permit that expires in six years, and they’ve got to come back and renew it. And that’s all they can have for ten years, and until E-verify and border security and the entry/exit tracking system is in place. Here’s my last point. The other thing is when these people come forward, as part of that registration, they’re going to have to pay a fine. And that money from those fines is what I think is what we’re going to use to pay for the border security. Those are billions of dollars. I don’t want that money coming from the American taxpayer, and I don’t want that money coming from the Treasury or adding to the debt. It needs to be paid for, and that’s why we need that fine money up front as well. The Grassley amendment delayed all that, and that was…the other problem with it is I don’t want to leave the border plan up to the Department of Homeland Security and Janet Napolitano. That’s a mistake that’s in the current bill. I think what we need to do is detail at a minimum standard, at a minimum, of what the border plan should be in detail. It must have this, it must have that. And the amendment didn’t do that, either. So we do need more border security. We need to improve the border security part of the bill. I didn’t think that was the best approach. There will be an alternative soon.

EM: When do you think we’re going to see an alternative that we can actually run down, because here’s the problem. The way that the bill is drafted at the moment, and I understand you’re talking about adding an amendment, but the way the bill is drafted at the moment, it does leave border security to the discretion of Janet Napolitano, or whoever the DHS secretary.

MR: Right, yeah.

EM: I mean, I…

MR: No, we have to change that.

EM: Yeah, I don’t want to pick on specific people here, because what we’re seeing over the last month or so in the IRS and possibly in the NSA, although we don’t know all the parameters of what happened there, but the ‘trust us’ factor is declined to probably historically low standards, Senator Rubio.

MR: Right.

EM: And so we need to see really concrete metrics as to what constitutes border security.

MR: Right, and that’s what we’re working, that’s what’s got to be in there, and that’s what we’re working on accomplishing. And I don’t think without it, it’ll have the 60 votes to pass the Senate, much less the House. And I’ve said that repeatedly now for weeks, so that’s exactly…so I think you’ll see something, God willing, early next week, so people can start to look at it. And a bunch of senators have been working on it. There are a lot of Republicans that want to be supportive of something, but need to be able to go back home and tell people that they have taken serious steps to ensure this never happens again. Like I said, it’s going to have to happen. It’s going to have to be in there, or this is not going to pass.

EM: Senator Rubio, we’ve been seeing some pushback from some of the rank and file in border patrol and immigration services saying that this, that the bill doesn’t allow them to enforce border security as it’s currently constituted. Have you heard some of this criticism?

MR: Yes.

EM: And what is your response to this, because these are the people who really probably know this best. They’re on the ground right now dealing with a lack of will to enforce what we do have on the books.

MR: Well, we’ve heard two separate criticisms. One is from the border patrol agents, the people on the front lines on the border. And not only have I met with them, but other senators have met with them. We’ve gotten a lot of input from them. And that’s some of the stuff that’s going to be in this specific plan. I mean, in essence, we don’t want to hear from the administrator, we don’t want to hear from Janet Napolitano. We want to hear from the people that are on the front lines trying to secure the border. And we’re taking all those ideas they’re giving us, and we’re working it into that specific plan that should be available, God willing, next week. The second issue is the internal enforcement. That’s ICE. Those are the ICE agents. And we have met with them on two occasions, and obviously our staffs have been talking to them. There’s a House bill that has some stuff that they want, so we’re trying to incorporate that stuff in this specific plan as well. So we do take very seriously the concerns that they have raised, quite frankly, not just with the bill. Their concern is that the bill doesn’t fix what’s broken in the status quo. I think they made valid points, and we’re taking all of those into consideration and working to incorporate them in whatever it is that comes forward next week.

EM: So we, just to make the point here in the interim while we’re continuing on, this is a work in progress, and we haven’t seen the final version of anything quite yet, because you’re still doing amendments, you’re still doing debate. Now with that said, Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the partners in the gang of eight, made statements that, and you’re going to have to help me out with this, that somehow the fines and the back taxes were not necessarily going to be imposed. Can you explain what’s going on with that, because again, you’re mentioning here that you’re counting on that money to help secure the border so it doesn’t cost American taxpayers anything.

MR: Right. First of all, what’s paying for the border security are the fines.

EM: The fines, yes.

MR: They’re going to have to pay a fine. That’s the consequence, one of the consequences of having broken our immigration laws. There’s not going to be any question about collecting those. Those are going to be collected. What we’re talking about are taxes on the money that the illegal immigrants have made during the years they’ve been in the country illegally. And so those are in our principles. I mean, that’s agreed to that that has to happen. The only question now is how do you make that happen, because practically speaking, you know, how do you prove that this is how much money they made in the past, and this is how much they owe, and that’s what we’re struggling with, is finding a way to implement that in a way that’s going to be done. Now right now, the way the bill has it is it requires them to pay back taxes, but it leaves it to the IRS to figure it out. Well, as you can imagine, our trust in the IRS is at an all-time low…

EM: Right.

MR: So we’re trying to figure out a way to make sure that that happens in a way that’s implementable, because going backwards and trying to get, calculate what people made over five years when they’ve been here illegally is not an easy thing to do, but it’s part of our principles, and it needs to be in the bill.

EM: Senator Rubio, you also made a comment about Democratic efforts to add recognition of gay marriage in terms of bringing in people in across the border. We only have like maybe 30 seconds left. Tell us about your objection to that, and why it’s such a fundamental objection for you.

MR: First of all, like I said, I respect people’s views on this issue. There’s a whole debate going on about that in this country. But if that gets on this bill, the bill is going to fail, and I can’t support it. I’ve already said that. I’m not trying to draw lines in the sand or issue ultimatums. I’m saying the same thing I said when it came up during the committee process. This is a delicate and difficult enough issue as it is, and I think most people in the Senate understand that.

EM: Senator Rubio, just very quickly, when can we expect to see the border security part of this bill being brought to the Senate?

MR: Well, I hope it’ll be next week. As I said, a bunch of other Republican senators outside the gang or the group of eight have taken leadership on it. I think that’s positive. I think that’s good. And so we’re pushing and hoping that that’s available as soon as possible.

EM: Senator Marco Rubio, thank you for joining us.

We had heard a couple of weeks ago that the Gang of Eight had more or less agreed to replace the original border-security provisions, which had left the substance and metrics to DHS. After watching what had happened with Obama administration efforts to get around existing immigration law, but more likely what had happened at the IRS, a consensus formed that Congress should dictate the solutions rather than allow DHS to determine them independently. However, they want to preserve the timing of the original approach, which is why the Grassley amendment didn’t work.

I’m a little surprised that they took this long to finalize the amendment. They need to get a true border-security package added quickly, because political momentum may shift quickly in the GOP on this without it, as Duane Patterson and I discussed at the end of the show (not included here). They’re not out of time yet, but they had better move fast. Timing counts in more than one way here.

Democrats always lie about the benefits of a bill and refuse to talk about the negatives; now Republicans are doing the same thing. No one is being honest with the American public. They keep cramming the Progressive Agenda down the people’s throats. The American people didn’t want Obamacare, nor do they think legalizing criminals is more important than Jobs and the Economy! This political double-dealing is creating a vacuum. I think it really is time for a Third Party, a party that doesn’t put the needs of American Citizens on the back burner only to give away billions of tax dollars to foreigners. A Pox On both Houses!

What happens IF the legalization sign-up happens and NOTHING else is ever implemented?

This is EXACTLY what will happen if THIS bill is passed. It will be the end of illegal immigration as it will open the border FOREVER!

And, Chuck Schumer will be proven correct in his statement that ‘this bill will end illegal immigration’. Of course, this has always been the goal of the open borders crowd that endlessly desires the destruction of the USA.

American ingenuity put men on the moon—chineese primatives, during the 7th century B.C. built the Great Wall—and yet our leaders insist building a wall is stupid, Border Security cannot be accomplished for years and years, if ever!!Lies, lies, and damn lies, that’s all we get!

Why exactly do we take it as fact that what these 11 million illegals want is American citizenship? That somehow dangling that prospect in front of them will be the thing that makes this all work?

I would argue that a majority of illegal immigrants coming here from Mexico have no desire to be American citizens. They just want to work and earn money so that they can send it back home. The work visa is the endgame for them. It’s all they need.

I simply don’t trust Rubio anymore. And to think, without the Tea Party, the buffoon would not be in the Senate. He has betrayed everyone who voted for him. I understand that Establishment Republicans will be RINO wimps, but I had hopes for Rubio. The ‘pubbies are finished.

Rubio has a silver tongue coupled with a corrupt, cynical, big-government Bushie heart. When you listen to him talk about American opportunity, you might think he’s an old fashioned patriot and conservative. But consider this: Obama talks about the “American Dream” and “opportunity” as well. We know Obama’s a communist lying snake so we discount what he says automatically. Aren’t we going through the same process with Rubio, learning through bitter disappointment likewise to discount all his flowery rhetoric?

What are conservatives to do when opportunists like Rubio get elected and then disappoint? Rubio looked so good when he was running. Maybe he looked too good.

I wonder whether Sharron Angle or Christine O’Donnell or Mourdock would have disappointed conservatives in the same way if they’d been elected? They were criticized for being “weird” and “extreme,” but I wonder if in terms of actual votes and legislative pushes they would have cynically shown disdain towards Tea Partiers the way Rubio has. I doubt it.

Here in CA, citizens of other nations who chose to live here illegally get aid and benefits. They also get in-state tuition at colleges (they pay less to go to our state taxpayer funded colleges and universities than American citizens who are not CA residents…) and due to affirmative action, special race-based scholarships and other forms of financial aid, push the children of many non-PC American citizens to the back of the bus.

Heads up America, California-style decline, decay and all Democrat, all the time government are coming to you thanks to this bill.

Don’t say you weren’t warned.

If you believe politicians are telling the truth when they say something you agree with (re: they are working hard on a process that will secure the borders) but are lying the rest of time, you are a fool.

Oh, and if you think politicians have *any* intention whatsoever to secure our borders, you are a gullible fool.

Sorry, no reason to believe a damn word this proven liar says about a damn thing.

F*ck off, Rubio. You’re as trustworthy as Obama is at this point, and you did it to your self.

Just f*ck off.

Midas on June 14, 2013 at 11:21 AM

I’ll add that the Conservative Networks/Blogs/Forums/Talk Radio need to stop giving this liar a platform. Let him join Schumer/McCain on the “alphabet” networks and other left wing programs. Better yet, let Rubio appear side by side with B.O. in an ad.

Question: Why is it that if a Citizen lies under oath to Congress or the IRS and any other Gov. Agency, they can be put in jail/prison, but they can lie to the American people with no penalty? That is what I would have asked the lying Rubio.

Illegals are more fertile and love their families…and they’ll fund border security.

workingclass artist on June 14, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Derangement all around. But I’ll be able to laugh about it only after we kill this bill.

It seems like that’s all we’ve been doing since Obama came to power — struggling to kill bills aimed at the heart of our country. Bill invariably backed and pushed by glib little quisling pr*cks like Rubio. Incredible when you think about it. Exhausting too.

“Senator Rubio, what do Republicans think they are getting out of this bill?”

When Chuck Schumer goes back to his office, he must look at his staff, laugh, and say “I am dealing with a bunch of idiots here.” Democrats are getting 40 million new voters, and Republicans are getting permanent minority status. And I doubt that Senator Rubio grasps that.

Illegals are more fertile and love their families…and they’ll fund border security.

workingclass artist on June 14, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Derangement all around. But I’ll be able to laugh about it only after we kill this bill.

It seems like that’s all we’ve been doing since Obama came to power — struggling to kill bills aimed at the heart of our country. Bill invariably backed and pushed by glib little quisling pr*cks like Rubio. Incredible when you think about it. Exhausting too.

rrpjr on June 14, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Jeb is double dealing both Ryan and Rubio in a beauty contest for his VP slot.

It’s sickening.

*blech*

Meanwhile…I take some comfort and amusement in the recent antics of my states governor…That would be Perry of Texas going on a yankee gun manufacturer recruiting tour. I hope he succeeds.

I feel better if the manufacturers are in a regionally safer state…if ya catch my drift.

I’ll add that the Conservative Networks/Blogs/Forums/Talk Radio need to stop giving this liar a platform. Let him join Schumer/McCain on the “alphabet” networks and other left wing programs.

bluefox on June 14, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Agreed – but that they are not taking Rubio to task, that they *are* giving him a nice comfortable platform to lie at us, should tell us a hell of a lot about what is really going on…

There is something they aren’t telling us. It is aspects of this bill they do not speak of.

I’ve been around long enough to know that politicians benefit from porous borders and illegal immigrants – and that, just like every other time, they will not secure the borders, regardless of what they write down on paper.

Much of the bill regarding “fines”, “back taxes” and border security are written so as to be readily gutted by the courts on behalf of activists and political cronies.

The only parts that will stick are “legalization” and “path to Democrat hegemony, aka, citizenship.

The only parts that will stick are “legalization” and “path to Democrat hegemony, aka, citizenship.

DrDeano on June 14, 2013 at 2:26 PM

I agree. All of the rest of their lies are just distractions.

We’ve always known the left & the Dems want this. However, for the R’s and especially Rubio to join them and lying about it is worse in my opinion. They are not only liars but have betrayed those that supported them with time, money and votes. We didn’t do that for the left nor the Dems.

Here’s my last point. The other thing is when these people come forward, as part of that registration, they’re going to have to pay a fine. And that money from those fines is what I think is what we’re going to use to pay for the border security. Those are billions of dollars. — Senator Marco Rubio

If Marco Rubio thinks these fines are going to contribute to even a portion of the cost of border security then he is going to have to make the fine a lot more expensive than the $500 fine he has been talking about in other interviews.

$500 will barely cover the cost of a real backround check and the paperwork required to register these ILLEGAL aliens.

If the fine is only $500 (and able to be waived in cases of financial hardship) there will not be enough money left over to build even an inch of border fence, let alone the ongoing cost to maintain the border security during the 6 year period that the $500 fine covers.

Which is it, Marco Rubio:

Does the $500 fine cover the cost of a proper international background check and associated registration paperwork?

Or does the $500 fine cover the cost of border security?

Without a more expensive fine, those international background checks are not going to uncover enough information to protect the American people from legalizing terrorists, drug dealers or people with other criminal backgrounds in either their home country or while they were in the U.S.

When Rubio runs for re.election, his Dem opponent will bludgeon him with the predictably disastrous results of whatever monstrosity of a bill emerges from this. And the media will enthusiastically back his opponent’s claims.
See George Bush’s “Read my lips. No new taxes.” for details.

I don’t trust any of these Republicans. Yesterday, I heard Sen. Hatch being interview by Fox reporter Uma Pemmaraju and he used the term “provisional immigrant” instead of illegal immigrant. Words mean things and when our elected Republican representatives start using the terms of the opposition, we can no longer believe them. He went on to say how the “provisional immigrants” will have to pay their taxes to get on the pathway to citizenship. We all know that is a load of crap! Almost half of Americans pay no federal income tax and I’ll bet nearly every illegal falls in the same income range so they will not pay a single dime. Damn these Republicans for their lies.